issue处理注意事项:
1. 提交正常修复分支的修复PR时,必须关联当前issue,否则无法关闭当前issue;
2. 模板内容需要填写完整, 无论是受影响或者不受影响都需要填写完整内容;
3. 以下为模板中需要填写完整的内容, 请复制到评论区回复;
注: 内容的关键词(影响性分析说明, openEuler评分, 受影响版本排查(受影响/不受影响), 修复是否涉及abi变化(是/否), 原因说明)不能省略,省略后cve-manager将无法正常解析填写内容.
影响性分析说明:
openEuler评分: (评分和向量)
受影响版本排查(受影响/不受影响):
1.master(6.18.40):
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4(4.19.90):
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4(5.10.0):
4.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next(6.6.0):
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1(6.6.0):
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3(6.6.0):
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4(6.6.0):
修复是否涉及abi变化(是/否)：
1.master(6.18.40):
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4(4.19.90):
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4(5.10.0):
4.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next(6.6.0):
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1(6.6.0):
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3(6.6.0):
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4(6.6.0):
原因说明：
1.master(6.18.40):
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4(4.19.90):
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4(5.10.0):
4.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next(6.6.0):
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1(6.6.0):
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3(6.6.0):
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4(6.6.0):
原因说明填写请参考下方表格(注意：版本是否受影响和版本的原因说明必须对应，例如master版本分支受影响，那原因说明只能是受影响对应的原因之一!)：
分支状态 |
原因说明 | 使用场景 |
|---|---|---|
| 受影响 | 正常修复 | 受影响且需要修复（包含升级版本修复）的漏洞； 受影响且已经修复的漏洞（历史修复PR也需要关联issue）； 若因特殊原因无法修复，应修改原因说明为【不修复-特殊原因】，并在安委会备案相关情况。 |
| 受影响 | 漏洞仍在分析中 | 已关注到相关漏洞，正在处理，未明确漏洞影响和修复方案。 |
| 受影响 | 暂不修复-暂无解决方案或补丁 | 当前没有可用的修复或补救措施。【影响性分析】中应包含有关为什么没有修复或补救措施的详细说明、上游相关PR等。 |
| 受影响 | 不修复-超出修复范围 | 没有漏洞的修复计划。当版本停维、软件包宣布生命周期终止或弃用使用。 |
| 受影响 | 不修复-特殊原因导致不再修复 | 如存在其他特殊情况不修复相关漏洞，或评估后无法升级修复，应在openEuler社区安全委员会例会进行说明备案。 【影响性分析】中应包含不发布修复的详细说明、特殊情况还应有安委会会议纪要。 |
| 不受影响 | 不受影响-组件不存在 | 软件不受影响，因为易受攻击的组件不在产品中。 |
| 不受影响 | 不受影响-已有内置的内联控制或缓解措施 | 内置的内联控制或缓解措施可防止攻击者利用漏洞 |
| 不受影响 | 不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发 | 易受攻击的组件存在，并且该组件包含易受攻击的代码。但是，易受攻击的代码的使用方式使得攻击者无法进行任何预期的攻击。 |
| 不受影响 | 不受影响-漏洞代码不在执行路径 | 易受影响的代码在执行过程中不可访问，包括产品的非预期状态。产品不使用也不执行的组件。 |
| 不受影响 | 不受影响-漏洞代码不存在 | 产品不受影响，因为漏洞背后的代码在产品中不存在。与component_not_present不同的是，有问题的组件存在，但由于某种原因（例如安全的编译器选项）使漏洞的特定代码不存在于组件中。 |
issue处理具体操作请参考:
https://atomgit.com/openeuler/cve-manager/blob/master/cve-vulner-manager/doc/md/manual.md
pr关联issue具体操作请参考:
https://docs.atomgit.com/docs/help/home/org_project/pullrequests/pr-related-issue
检测到新建 CVE Issue，CVE-ID: CVE-2026-74598。
你可以通过以下两种方式使用 CVE 修复服务：
-
分支影响分析
- 在本 Issue 下评论：
/analysis_branches - 系统将自动分析各个分支是否受影响，并在本 Issue 下给出表格形式的分析结果；
- 在本 Issue 下评论：
-
在指定分支上创建 PR（修复提交）
- 在本 Issue 下按如下格式评论（
branch、name、email为必填字段，每个字段单独一行）：
- 在本 Issue 下按如下格式评论（
/create_pr
branch: OLK-6.6 OLK-5.10
name: dev
email: dev@devstation.com
backport-engine: opencode
- 说明：
branch: 需要创建 PR 的目标分支列表，例如OLK-6.6 OLK-5.10；name: PR 签名人姓名（如责任人或安全负责人）；email: PR 签名人邮箱；backport-engine（可选）：可选portgpt、mystique或opencode；不填时默认使用portgpt，建议使用opencode；
系统会根据上述信息自动在指定分支上创建 PR，并在本 Issue 下反馈结果。
provided by DevStation.
说明：补丁链接仅供初步排查参考，实际可用性请人工再次确认，补丁下载验证可使用CVE补丁工具。
若补丁不准确，烦请在此issue下评论 '/report-patch 参考网址 补丁链接1,补丁链接2' 反馈正确信息，便于我们不断优化工具，不胜感激。
如 /report-patch https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2021-3997 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/5b1cf7a9be37e20133c0208005274ce4a5b5c6a1
Welcome To openEuler Community
Hey @openeuler-ci-bot , thanks for your contribution to the community.
Bot Usage Manual
I'm the Bot here serving you. You can find the instructions on how to interact with me at Here . That means you can comment below every pull request or issue to trigger Bot Commands.
Contact Guide
If you have any questions, please contact the SIG: Kernel ,
and any of the maintainers: @hanjunguo, @oekernel, @sanglipeng, @wkfxxx, @zeng_zhaorong ,
and any of the committers: @CTC-XiboWang, @Frank_Sae, @GoGo_phytium, @GongLei-, @LiuYongQiang0816, @SuperSix173, @Tankll2021, @TrueAI, @YiweiZ, @allen-shi, @baratta, @bibo_mao, @caixu-blue, @chen-jun-hw, @chenjiesong, @chenjunxin1992, @chenke2026, @chiqijun, @chriszjh, @duanqiangwen, @eingesch, @fangfeng123, @fanghaiqinghw, @gang_he, @gaojuxin09, @gouhao2022, @guohaocs2c, @guzitao, @hanjunguo, @hanliyang, @hellotcc, @henryze, @hewanhan, @hjx_gitff, @hongwu-wang, @htforge, @hu-chunzhi, @hunan4222, @jackknight, @jerry_lilijun, @jiayi0118, @junlong-zheng, @juntianlinux, @kailiu42, @kaitiandu, @kazero00, @kevinzhu1, @kile2009, @klmengkd, @koishimind, @kongzizaixian, @kylin-mayukun, @leoliu-oc, @li-huisong, @linan888, @linyunsheng, @liulongfang, @liyihang0226, @lostway1, @lujialin2, @mao-hongbo, @markyuan4ta21, @mawupeng, @mingqian218472, @mingrui-liu, @mufengyan, @pigalsofine, @robinorg, @rock_hw, @sanglipeng, @shu-shengming, @shuaijiakun, @sming56_admin, @stavewu, @stkid, @sun_nanyong, @wangboe2022, @wanghang73, @wenzhiwei11, @whoisxxx, @wkfxxx, @woqidaideshi, @wsoydl, @xingmz1, @xukuohai, @yeweihua999, @ygn-ndwd-official, @yonghu_4dc5, @young-sun, @yubo-liu1, @yuehaibing_planb, @yuzenghui1, @zhang-changzhong, @zhangyi089, @zhujianwei001, @zichengqu, @zouyipeng, @zqiao216 .
CVE-2026-74598
影响性分析说明：
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: fix Route Information option length validation
rt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) length
against the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.
rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and it
includes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes of
prefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3
when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greater
than 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.
ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,
so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or
(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past the
end of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route that
gets installed, so they are visible to userspace:
RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2)
followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe
$ ip -6 route show
2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of bounds
When the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, those
eight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.
Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.
The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue.
openEuler评分:(评分和向量)
3.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
受影响版本排查(受影响/不受影响):
1.master:不受影响
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:受影响
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:受影响
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
修复是否涉及abi变化(是/否)：
1.master:否
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:否
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否
原因说明：
1.master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
@mingqian218472 经过 cve-manager 解析, 已分析的内容如下表所示:
| 状态 | 分析项目 | 内容 |
|---|---|---|
| 已分析 | 1.影响性分析说明 | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:ipv6: fix Route Information option length validationrt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) lengthagainst the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and itincludes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes ofprefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greaterthan 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past theend of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route thatgets installed, so they are visible to userspace: # RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2) # followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe $ ip -6 route show 2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of boundsWhen the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, thoseeight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue. |
| 已分析 | 2.openEulerScore | 3.9 |
| 已分析 | 3.openEulerVector | AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L |
| 已分析 | 4.受影响版本排查 | master:不受影响,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响 |
| 已分析 | 5.是否涉及abi变化 | master:否,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否 |
| 已分析 | 6.原因说明 | master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围 |
请确认分析内容的准确性, 确认无误后, 您可以进行后续步骤, 否则您可以继续分析.
CVE-2026-74598
影响性分析说明：
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: fix Route Information option length validation
rt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) length
against the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.
rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and it
includes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes of
prefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3
when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greater
than 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.
ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,
so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or
(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past the
end of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route that
gets installed, so they are visible to userspace:
RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2)
followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe
$ ip -6 route show
2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of bounds
When the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, those
eight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.
Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.
The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue.
openEuler评分:(评分和向量)
7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
受影响版本排查(受影响/不受影响):
1.master:不受影响
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:受影响
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:受影响
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
修复是否涉及abi变化(是/否)：
1.master:否
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:否
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否
原因说明：
1.master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
@mingqian218472 经过 cve-manager 解析, 已分析的内容如下表所示:
| 状态 | 分析项目 | 内容 |
|---|---|---|
| 已分析 | 1.影响性分析说明 | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:ipv6: fix Route Information option length validationrt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) lengthagainst the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and itincludes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes ofprefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greaterthan 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past theend of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route thatgets installed, so they are visible to userspace: # RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2) # followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe $ ip -6 route show 2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of boundsWhen the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, thoseeight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue. |
| 已分析 | 2.openEulerScore | 7.5 |
| 已分析 | 3.openEulerVector | AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N |
| 已分析 | 4.受影响版本排查 | master:不受影响,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响 |
| 已分析 | 5.是否涉及abi变化 | master:否,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否 |
| 已分析 | 6.原因说明 | master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围 |
请确认分析内容的准确性, 确认无误后, 您可以进行后续步骤, 否则您可以继续分析.
CVE-2026-74598
影响性分析说明：
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: fix Route Information option length validation
rt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) length
against the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.
rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and it
includes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes of
prefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3
when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greater
than 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.
ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,
so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or
(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past the
end of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route that
gets installed, so they are visible to userspace:
RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2)
followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe
$ ip -6 route show
2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of bounds
When the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, those
eight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.
Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.
The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue.
openEuler评分:(评分和向量)
7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
受影响版本排查(受影响/不受影响):
1.master:不受影响
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响
修复是否涉及abi变化(是/否)：
1.master:否
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:否
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否
原因说明：
1.master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
@mingqian218472 经过 cve-manager 解析, 已分析的内容如下表所示:
| 状态 | 分析项目 | 内容 |
|---|---|---|
| 已分析 | 1.影响性分析说明 | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:ipv6: fix Route Information option length validationrt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) lengthagainst the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and itincludes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes ofprefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greaterthan 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past theend of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route thatgets installed, so they are visible to userspace: # RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2) # followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe $ ip -6 route show 2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of boundsWhen the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, thoseeight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue. |
| 已分析 | 2.openEulerScore | 7.5 |
| 已分析 | 3.openEulerVector | AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N |
| 已分析 | 4.受影响版本排查 | master:不受影响,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响 |
| 已分析 | 5.是否涉及abi变化 | master:否,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否 |
| 已分析 | 6.原因说明 | master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围 |
请确认分析内容的准确性, 确认无误后, 您可以进行后续步骤, 否则您可以继续分析.
CVE-2026-74598
影响性分析说明：
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: fix Route Information option length validation
rt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) length
against the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.
rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and it
includes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes of
prefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3
when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greater
than 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.
ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,
so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or
(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past the
end of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route that
gets installed, so they are visible to userspace:
RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2)
followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe
$ ip -6 route show
2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of bounds
When the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, those
eight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.
Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.
The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue.
openEuler评分:(评分和向量)
7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
受影响版本排查(受影响/不受影响):
1.master:不受影响
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响
修复是否涉及abi变化(是/否)：
1.master:否
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:否
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否
原因说明：
1.master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围
4.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
8.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
@mingqian218472 经过 cve-manager 解析, 已分析的内容如下表所示:
| 状态 | 分析项目 | 内容 |
|---|---|---|
| 已分析 | 1.影响性分析说明 | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:ipv6: fix Route Information option length validationrt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) lengthagainst the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and itincludes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes ofprefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greaterthan 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past theend of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route thatgets installed, so they are visible to userspace: # RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2) # followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe $ ip -6 route show 2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of boundsWhen the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, thoseeight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue. |
| 已分析 | 2.openEulerScore | 7.5 |
| 已分析 | 3.openEulerVector | AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N |
| 已分析 | 4.受影响版本排查 | master:不受影响,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS:受影响,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:受影响 |
| 已分析 | 5.是否涉及abi变化 | master:否,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:否,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS:否,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:否 |
| 已分析 | 6.原因说明 | master:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4:暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中,openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next:不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4:不受影响-漏洞代码不存在,openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS:不修复-超出修复范围,openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2:不修复-超出修复范围 |
请确认分析内容的准确性, 确认无误后, 您可以进行后续步骤, 否则您可以继续分析.
一、漏洞信息
漏洞编号：CVE-2026-74598
漏洞归属组件：kernel
漏洞归属的版本：4.19.140,4.19.90,5.10.0,6.1.19,6.18.40,6.18.48,6.4.0,6.6.0
CVSS评分：
BaseScore：7.5 High
Vector：CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
漏洞简述：
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:ipv6: fix Route Information option length validationrt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) lengthagainst the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and itincludes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes ofprefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greaterthan 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past theend of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route thatgets installed, so they are visible to userspace: # RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2) # followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe $ ip -6 route show 2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of boundsWhen the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, thoseeight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.
漏洞公开时间：2026-08-23 00:16:32
漏洞创建时间：2026-08-23 00:17:50
漏洞详情参考链接：
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-74598
更多参考(点击展开)
漏洞分析指导链接：
https://atomgit.com/openeuler/cve-manager/blob/master/cve-vulner-manager/doc/md/manual.md
漏洞数据来源:
七彩瞬析开源风险感知平台
漏洞补丁信息：
详情(点击展开)
二、漏洞分析结构反馈
影响性分析说明：
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:ipv6: fix Route Information option length validationrt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) lengthagainst the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and itincludes the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes ofprefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greaterthan 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past theend of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route thatgets installed, so they are visible to userspace: # RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2) # followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe $ ip -6 route show 2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of boundsWhen the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, thoseeight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74598 to this issue.
openEuler评分：
7.5
Vector：CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
受影响版本排查(受影响/不受影响)：
1.master(6.18.40):不受影响
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4(4.19.90):受影响
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4(5.10.0):受影响
4.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next(6.6.0):不受影响
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1(6.6.0):不受影响
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3(6.6.0):不受影响
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4(6.6.0):不受影响
8.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3(5.10.0):受影响
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS(6.6.0):受影响
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2(6.6.0):受影响
修复是否涉及abi变化(是/否)：
1.master(6.18.40):否
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4(4.19.90):否
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4(5.10.0):否
4.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next(6.6.0):否
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1(6.6.0):否
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3(6.6.0):否
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4(6.6.0):否
8.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3(5.10.0):否
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS(6.6.0):否
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2(6.6.0):否
原因说明：
1.master(6.18.40):不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
2.openEuler-20.03-LTS-SP4(4.19.90):暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
3.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP4(5.10.0):暂不修复-漏洞仍在分析中
4.openEuler-24.03-LTS-Next(6.6.0):不受影响-漏洞代码不能被攻击者触发
5.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1(6.6.0):不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
6.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3(6.6.0):不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
7.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4(6.6.0):不受影响-漏洞代码不存在
8.openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP3(5.10.0):不修复-超出修复范围
9.openEuler-24.03-LTS(6.6.0):不修复-超出修复范围
10.openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP2(6.6.0):不修复-超出修复范围